Canon EF Extender, EF 1.4x II

AnimalRights

I need a bit of extra reach if I want to take pictures at Dalymount of the Footy or Cricket at Clontarf.
I own a Canon 70-200L F4 non-is and last week found it too be too short at Clontarf.
I looked around for an affordable 300mm Canon lense but their were so many different options I ended up more confused...
My question is would I be better of just buying the extender? and if it's 1.4 would that give me a little over 300 in total?
I read a wee bit that on 70-200's including this from FredMirandas
"Particularly on the EF 70-200mm varieties, it's impact is minimal."

So to sum up I'm not really sure whats the best for me..
The 70-200L + extender or is it worth spending all the extra cash ( I'd be leaving myself totally broke) on something like the Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens...

As always from an inexperienced photographer I highly appreciate any replies.

Paulw

If I was you, I'd try to move closer physically, if possible.

With the 1.4 extender, your 70-200mm f/4 then becomes 98-280mm f/5.6. So, your lens becomes that little bit slower. That shouldn't be a major problem during bright daylight though.

You could even try to crop your images tighter, to almost 1:1, and see how that is. There should be enough image quality in the camera and lens for that.

The 300mm f/4 IS L lens is an investment and you would want to be sure before spending that money.

Dodgykeeper

Animal Rights check your PM's

Covey

The 400mm 5.6 L is also a reasonably affordable option and has a good re-sale value if you want to move up to the big boys later on.

It's not really suitable under lights, but for most days, except maybe the worst of the winter it does a fine job. Tack sharp also.

Here's a couple of examples;

whyulittle

Half or more of the eL season is played under lights though.

Dodgykeeper

It would be ok in the first half of matches until August but then you will really struggle when it gets that little bit darker!

Covey

whyulittle wrote: »

Half or more of the eL season is played under lights though.

Yep.

But, as Animal Rights has classed himself as inexperienced, I was just outlining a relatively cheap option to get started ( with a good re-sale potential).

At least one guy on here jumped in and bought an expensive 300 2,8 only to find that sports photography was not for him.

Covey

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

It would be ok in the first half of matches until August but then you will really struggle when it gets that little bit darker!

The above shots were taken end of September btw.

It's certainly not an ideal lens if you must get shots (for a newspaper, club or whatever) but for the enthusiastic amateur it's a relatively painless way of starting out imo.

whyulittle

Covey wrote: »

At least one guy on here jumped in and bought an expensive 300 2,8 only to find that sports photography was not for him.

Did he find a buyer for it yet!?

I would imagine cricket in this country is played exclusively in natural light, so I'm sure your choice would do for that.

Covey

whyulittle wrote: »

Did he find a buyer for it yet!?

Don't think so :eek:

Dodgykeeper

Covey wrote: »

The above shots were taken end of September btw.

Eircom League matches start at 7.45 usually and by the time the second half start at 8.45 it is very gloomy specially in September and the light around the country are not the best>

robinph

As they stop cricket matches for "bad light" or "a cup of tea" or even a hint of rain I cannot see the weather ever being much of a problem.

AnimalRights

Lads, tis only a few Cricket matches a year I would go to at Clontarf, wouldn't be attending club Cricket just the internationals etc, EL was the main thing, I'll have a think and read up.
Ta for all replies.